On Whose Authority?

[skunk]

link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/20/gulf.arrests/index.html)

What the hell is going on here? What authority does the US have to interfere with private enterprise in international waters?

[zimv20]

war on terror, man. when americans are scared, international law doesn't matter.

[skunk]

Originally posted by zimv20
when americans are scared,
What, scared of a little dope? :(

[zimv20]

Originally posted by skunk
What, scared of a little dope? :(

i'll be interested to see if there's any substance to the claims that the drug shipments had "direct links to al qaeda".

i think you know the point i was making -- since 9/11, bush has used terror as an excuse to do anything he damn well pleases, international law be damned.

[Sayhey]

I can't believe I'm providing a link to the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel071001.shtml) but this thread got me thinking and I did a search and found this very interesting article.

The U.S. Code (Title 14, sect. 89) gives the Coast Guard the authority to "At any time, to go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ships documents and examine, inspect and search the vessel…"In other words, Congress has repealed the Fourth Amendment for everyone on a ship.

The Coast Guard can come onboard and snoop around whenever it wants. Recreational boaters in coastal waters tell numerous stories about the Coast Guard inviting itself onto fishing boats, sailing sloops, and every other kind of boat, in order to start looking about for a stray joint, as a pretext to seize ship. Federal forfeiture laws promote this form of legalized piracy.

But how did the Navy get involved in this? What about the federal law (the Posse Comitatus Act) which forbids the military to participate in law enforcement? What about the principle that turning the military into a police agency is a disaster for freedom and due process — as many other countries have learned the hard way?

During peacetime, the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Transportation, not part of the Navy. So the Coast Guard doesn't have to obey the Posse Comitatus Act. Thus, what the Navy does is put some Coast Guard personnel on Navy ships. Then, when U.S. Navy guided missile frigate wants to stop being a warship and become a world's police cruiser, it hoists a Coast Guard flag, and magically become a legitimate law enforcement platform.

and this very interesting passage:One of the authors, Mike Krause, served in the Coast Guard from 1989-1991, including five joint agency Caribbean patrols on the Coast Guard Cutter Hamilton. If the Hamilton wanted to board a foreign vessel in international waters to look for drugs, the crew would simply ask. Now why would the master of a ship, outside U.S. territorial waters, consent to the U.S. Navy/Coast Guard boarding his ship? Because it is more coercion than consent.

The Hamilton was 378-feet long and in addition to her main 3-inch gun and an array of M-60 machine gun mounts, she carried six harpoon missiles on her bow. The captain of a ship in the middle of the ocean would be hard-pressed to turn down a request from a warship capable of blowing him out of the water. This would be similar to a squad of police on your front porch pointing guns in your general direction, then "asking" to come inside and look around.

That last bit sounds an awful lot like piracy.

[Stelliform]

Originally posted by zimv20
international law be damned.

Does anyone here have a link to these "international Laws" we keep hearing of? I am just curious. Both sides keep using this phrase, but I am not aware of an international constitution, or international bill or rights...

I am aware of a bunch of treaties we signed, I guess it is a compilation of those treaties...

Just wondering...

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Stelliform
Does anyone here have a link to these "international Laws" we keep hearing of? I am just curious. Both sides keep using this phrase, but I am not aware of an international constitution, or international bill or rights...

I am aware of a bunch of treaties we signed, I guess it is a compilation of those treaties...

Just wondering...

Yes, treaties and things like the UN Charter. If you look at our own Constitution you will see how it views treaties.

Article VI
... This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Code101]

Originally posted by skunk
link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/20/gulf.arrests/index.html)

What the hell is going on here? What authority does the US have to interfere with private enterprise in international waters?

What do you care? We stopped +9 Million in drugs that would have gone to Osama that could have funded attacks on the US and UK.

Who's side are you on? We have to stop terrorists! Instead of showing your hate for the US, President Bush and your own PM who I think is a good man, think of how to stop terrorism.

[Ugg]

Originally posted by Code101
What do you care? We stopped +9 Million in drugs that would have gone to Osama that could have funded attacks on the US and UK.

Who's side are you on? We have to stop terrorists! Instead of showing your hate for the US, President Bush and your own PM who I think is a good man, think of how to stop terrorism.

Perhaps removing tony and gw from office would be the first step in stopping terrorism. The next would be drastically reducing the west's dependence upon oil but I fear that you and your ilk would find that conservation is a commie plot to destroy western civilization. Oh, well, the death of the US constitution seems not to matter when it comes to "fighting terrorism"

[skunk]

Originally posted by Code101
Who's side are you on?
Without a mandate, it's piracy, just like the Iraqi adventure was mass murder.

[mactastic]

Wow, we really are throwing around some awfully strong charges here aren't we? Mass murder, piracy, treason... Let's not let this get out of hand.

I wouldn't mind hearing more about "international law" either. Any maritime lawyers out there?

[Thanatoast]

There is a "UN Convention on the Law of the Sea". link (http://www.un.org/Depts/los/index.htm) It sets out rules for coastal rights, sailing rights, fishing rights, it's all in there. The US and several other first-world nations have not signed on to it because of one section that declares that resources extracted from the seabed of international waters are property of all nations and should be divvied up equally. We found this stipulation to be unfair to our economic rights, so we never signed on to the treaty. What we have done, however, is say "our law of the sea is exactly what is written down in the Convention, except for the bit about sharing." So we generally follow what it says.

Now about boarding vessels, the congress declared in the 90's, I think, that US law can be pursued anywhere on the face of the planet. It was in relation to a ship being boarded by us in SE Asia somewhere, and the ship owners sued saying we had no authority. Whether this makes any sense or not is up for debate, but it is our policy.

[skunk]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Now about boarding vessels, the congress declared in the 90's, I think, that US law can be pursued anywhere on the face of the planet. It was in relation to a ship being boarded by us in SE Asia somewhere, and the ship owners sued saying we had no authority. Whether this makes any sense or not is up for debate, but it is our policy.
So in theory everybody in the world is subject to US law? Wow! Were they consulted? How do you define arrogance?
I think we have hit on the nub of the problem - indeed, many problems - right there.

[Juventuz]

Where was your outrage when France seized the Manutea in international waters?

Where was your outrage when North Korea seized the USS Pueblo in international waters?

Where was your outrage when Canada seized Spanish fishing vessels in international waters?

Where was your outrage when Australia seized the Tampa in international waters?

Of course since it's the US seizing illegal drugs it's bad. What right does the US have in interfering with a "private enterprise".

[Sayhey]

Originally posted by Juventuz
Where was your outrage when France seized the Manutea in international waters?

Where was your outrage when North Korea seized the USS Pueblo in international waters?

Where was your outrage when Canada seized Spanish fishing vessels in international waters?

Where was your outrage when Australia seized the Tampa in international waters?

Of course since it's the US seizing illegal drugs it's bad. What right does the US have in interfering with a "private enterprise".

How do you know that any of us were not outrage at each of these incidents? Most of us are trying to figure out what law if any governs these types of problems. I would prefer that my government operates within the structure of the law. That doesn't seem to be such an outrageous idea. I have no problem with seizing boats that are smuggling drugs. And I don't have a problem especially if they really are al Qaeda operations. I would like to know just what is the legal basis for the action however. If there is no mandate, this seems like a slam dunk in the Security Council if Bush could see his way to involving other nations.